Not trying to barge in, just sprinkling data... On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Brian Kardell <bkard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Olli Pettay <o...@pettay.fi> wrote: > >> On 02/02/2015 09:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >> >>> Brian recently posted what looks like an excellent framing of the >>> composition problem: >>> >>> https://briankardell.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/ >>> friendly-fire-the-fog-of-dom/ >>> >>> This is the problem we solved with Shadow DOM and the problem I would >>> like to see solved with the primitive being discussed on this thread. >>> >>> >> >> random comments about that blog post. > > > >> [snip] >> We need to be able to select mount nodes explicitly, and perhaps >> explicitly say that all such nodes should be selected. >> So, maybe, deep(mountName) and deep(*) >> >> Is there a reason you couldn't do that with normal CSS techniques, no > additional combinator? something like /mount/[id=foo] ? > That's ::shadow in the scoping spec: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-scoping/#shadow-pseudoelement > > > [snip] > >> "It still needs to be possible from the hosting page to say “Yes, I mean >> all buttons should be blue”" >> I disagree with that. It can very well be possible that some component >> really must control the colors itself. Say, it uses >> buttons to indicate if traffic light is red or green. Making both those >> buttons suddenly blue would break the whole concept of the >> component. >> > This is still possible, and works in a predictable way with today's styling machinery. Use inline styles on the button that you want to be green/red inside of the scope, and no /deep/ or /mount/ or >>> will be able to affect it: http://jsbin.com/juyeziwaqo/1/edit?html,css,js,output ... unless the war progressed to the stage where "!important" is used as hammer. :DG<